How we can make globalisation fairer

We need international action to halt the slide on corporation tax.

The world's wealthy and powerful have convened in the small Swiss town of Davos this week with income disparity high on the agenda. But although it tops the list of CEO risks, no one here appears clear about how to deal with the problem.

The global financial crash should have been the left's moment but now in the fifth year of the crisis, which unpicked many of the principal assumptions of neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus, social democrats and progressives are no closer to having an analysis about how to make the global economy work more equitably and sustainably.

The occupy movement have done much to raise awareness of the issue - spooking company bosses along the way - but they have been largely silent on alternatives, passing the buck to politicians. In the UK our elected representatives have fallen over one another to call for a more popular, responsible or mutualist form of capitalism but suggest micro measures at the domestic level. They miss the point that global fairness in a global economy starts at the global level.

A new report by IPPR, launched today in Davos, takes an analytical and historical look at globalisation to break it down into component parts and understand what has delivered progressive outcomes and what has failed. On the BBC's Today programme this morning, Lord Mandelson - who led our Globalisation project and wrote a foreword to the report - spoke of how markets, while indispensable, can become volatile and need to be regulated, and that globalisation creates income inequalities. Unlike the laissez faire approach to globalisation of the 1990s which appeared to see globalisation as an end in itself, we see that globalisation has the potential to lift people out of poverty and expand the global middle class, as it has most dramatically in China, but that it comes with risks too.

Chief among the risks are the prospect of a downward spiral on corporation tax and the excessive volatility inherent in some forms of capital mobility. The first has moved the tax burden away from global corporations towards individual income, consumption and domestic firms; the latter is part of a wider problem in the financial services sector where pay and performance have become unhinged with all the incentives geared at the short term gains rather than long term value.

Our report recommends concerted international action to halt the slide on corporation tax by making profits across Europe contingent on where sales, staff and production is actually based rather than where the head office is registered. We also push for a more widespread understanding that capital controls, which the IMF now advocate but other organizations like the WTO still oppose, are a legitimate policy in certain circumstances.

In surplus countries like China, health, unemployment and retirement insurance systems are key to reducing savings rates and increasing domestic demand. Conditional cash transfers, like, for example, former President Lula's 'bolsa familia' policy of giving poor families incentives to vaccinate their kids and send them to school, are also a good way of lifting living standards.

In current account deficit countries like the UK and US, the challenge is to increase levels of trade. The projected increases in the global middle class create huge export opportunities for Britain in educational services, higher education, medical devices,green technology, the creative industries and tourism as well as our more traditional comparative advantages such as financial services, aerospace and pharmaceuticals.

In addition we must ensure that consumption is based not on debt but on rising wages. Efforts to broaden the living wage is key to this but so too should countries like Britain reorient their welfare policies towards the crisis points that globalisation can cause like unemployment. Wage loss insurance, which would mean higher benefits when people lose their job but a requirement to pay it back when they return to employment, is another idea worth exploring. Ensuring that Britain

Meeting the concerns of citizens everywhere who feel anger at the growing disparities in society at a time of austerity is by no means easy. But it is essential if governments and CEOs are to avoid an even bigger populist backlash.

Will Straw is Associate Director at IPPR

Will Straw is Associate Director at IPPR.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Meet the remarkable British woman imprisoned for fighting against Isis

The treatment of Silhan Özçelik shows how confused British policy towards the Middle East has become. 

Last week, a British court sentenced a woman to prison for attempting to join fighters in the Middle East. Silhan Özçelik, an 18-year-old from Highbury, London was sentenced to 21 months for her part in “preparing terrorist acts” under the Terrorism Act 2006. The judge called her a “stupid, feckless and deeply dishonest young woman”.  What all of this misses out is the most extraordinary fact: that Özçelik was not convicted for going to fight for the Islamic State, but for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party – better known as the PKK, one of the only effective and consistent opponents of Isis since the war began.

Volunteering to fight in foreign wars – so long as they are long ago enough – is a celebrated tradition in Britain. In the late 1930s, while the Spanish Republic battled on against a fascist coup led by General Franco, tens of thousands of volunteers from all over the world went to fight for the International Brigades, including 2,500 from the UK. They included future celebrities such as writer George Orwell and actor James Robertson Justice, and commemorative plaques and memorials can now be seen all over the country

Like the International Brigade volunteers, Özçelik allegedly volunteered to fight for an embattled state facing military defeat at the hands of a far-right insurgency. The combat units she might have joined have been the subject of moving portraits in the Guardian and even praise on Fox News. The PKK is a secular socialist organisation, with a streak of libertarianism and its own feminist movements. But because of its military opposition to the often brutal Turkish treatment of the Kurds, the western powers list the PKK as a terrorist organisation; and would-be heroes like Silhan Özçelik are detained as criminals by the British state.

On one level, what Özçelik’s conviction represents is a change in how the state relates to ordinary citizens who fight. In 1936, the rise of fascism was something on our doorstep, which was opposed most fervently not by official western governments but by ordinary folk, dangerous far left subversives and free spirited writers who sailed to Spain – often in spite of their own governments. In today’s wars in the Middle East, the state is absolutely determined to maintain its monopoly on the right to sanction violence.

What Orwell and other volunteers understood was that while western governments might promote values like liberty and deplore the rise of tyranny, they were also duplicitous and unreliable when it came to prioritising the defeat of fascism over the narrow interests of nation and profit. Then as now, western governments were  deeply uneasy about the idea of ordinary people taking up arms and intervening in global affairs, or deciding – by force – who governs them. If the Terrorism Act 2006 had applied in 1936, Orwell would surely have been arrested at Dover and sent to prison.

More pressingly for the current situation, the persecution of the PKK should make you think twice about the motivations and outcomes for military intervention in Syria. Cameron is on a march to war, and, following the Paris attacks, much of the political establishment is now lining up to support him.

At the same time, our court system is imprisoning and persecuting young women who try to take up arms against Isis. It is doing so at the behest not of our own national security, which has never been threatened by the PKK, but that of Turkey. Turkey’s military is actively targeting Kurdish forces, and has recently stepped up these attacks. There is a wealth of evidence, not least its behaviour during the recent siege of Kobane, to suggest that Turkey – Britain’s only formal NATO ally in the region – is tacitly collaborating with Isis in an attempt to defeat both Assad and the Kurds.

As the government rushes to war in Syria, much of the media attention will focus on Jeremy Corbyn’s awkward task of holding his anti-war line while persuading his party and Shadow Cabinet not to split over the issue. Others will focus, rightly, on the complexity of the situation in the region and the question of who western air-strikes are really there to support: is it Assad, the murderous dictator whose regime has itself been linked to the rise of Isis; Turkey, which is seemingly focussed entirely on defeating Assad and the Kurds; or the soup of organisations – including the Al-Qaeda franchise in Syria – which constitute the anti-regime rebels?

But Özçelik’s conviction should also raise a more fundamental concern: that the contradictions and complications that we are so used to associating with the Middle East lie at the heart of British and western policy as well. If the British state persecutes, rather than supports, the few secular and progressive organisations in the region who are fighting Isis, whose interests is it really serving? And if we don’t trust those interests, how much trust can we really place in it to act on our behalf in Syria?

You can sign a petition calling for Silhan Özçelik’s release here, and a petition calling for the decriminalisation of the PKK here.